Formula 1 - 2009 Season

[Davros]

If he would have just stayed in front of Trulli and not slowed down, everything would have been fine.

or had he let truli past and said to the stewards "we were unsure if we overtook truli legally so we erred on the side of caution and let him past" it probably would still of been ok, it was the lying and being prepared to let truli get a totally unjust 25 sec penalty which is pissing everyone off.

 

[Kaotik]

or had he let truli past and said to the stewards "we were unsure if we overtook truli legally so we erred on the side of caution and let him past" it probably would still of been ok, it was the lying and being prepared to let truli get a totally unjust 25 sec penalty which is pissing everyone off.

Yes, that would have worked too

 

[Bludd]

@bludd the alonso cheating at mclaren incident

I would love a journalist to say to alonso "Being a known cheater whats your opinion on lewis lying to the stewards"

Do you mean the spying affair?

Anyway, it was a good race up until the rain turned Noah's Ark on us.

The start was amazing, Alonso and Rosberg stormed up. Too bad the Renault is so bad at the moment. Ferrari messed up once again, 0 points and that wet weather tyre gamble with Kimi was crazy. The track was bone dry.

Half points, I can't remember when that happened last ...

 

[Kaotik]

ROFL, Mosley seriously needs to step down, his latest "brilliant idea" is forcing same engine for at least F1, F2 and Rally Championship - yes, you read it right, to force the same engine on damn rally cars and F1's!
Of course there's some differences, F1s would get turbocharged, lower classes free breathing ones, and Rally either turbocharged or free breathing, but still, same engine for everyone in 2013 if his plans go through

I used finnish F1 site as source, but google gave results and here's the first:
http://www.worldcarfans.com/9090406.028/mosley-reveals-plans-for-fia-world-engine

 

[Bludd]

Built by Cosworth? Heh.

I think the engine manufacturers put a lot of pride into their engines and I don't think they will be OK with this. It's probably more sabre rattling from Mosley.

 

[DJ12]

Well the appeal of Rallying is you can go to the showroom and pick up something like what they race with (with a couple of exceptions from the wankers at Citreon and Ford, why for the love of god WHY!!! make a road going version you spiteful gits....)

I cannot see the likes of Subaru and Mitsubishi going for this one engine crap.

 

[nutball]

Why don't they just go straight to single-manufacturer touring car racing on ice and be done with it? With the final result determined weeks afterwards by popular phone-in/national lottery draw type thing. Also all the drivers have to wear clown suits, especially the big shoes so they make lots of mistakes pressing the go/stop button.

That seems to be the natural end-point of all this [strike]fucking about[/strike] meddling.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Well the appeal of Rallying is you can go to the showroom and pick up something like what they race with (with a couple of exceptions from the wankers at Citreon and Ford, why for the love of god WHY!!! make a road going version you spiteful gits....)

I cannot see the likes of Subaru and Mitsubishi going for this one engine crap.

WRD cars dont have anything to do with road going cars anyway. If you try to drive the road going equivilant of the WRC car it wont last for 3 yards.

For the rest its a stupid idea. It would mean F1 cars are stuck with 4cilinder turbo engines as you cant use v8's in your rally car. Well the only maybe good thing I can see is that maybe somebody could actually be bother watching WRC again as maybe this could mean a return to Group B cars, anything goes machines, tons of power and low weight. Modern WRC cars are pussy machines.

 

[DJ12]

The road going equivelient of a Subaru is an STi, I used to own one.

You obviously don't know much about rallying, modern day WRC cars would wipe the floor with the old group B cars, they are much faster.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Modern F1 cars are faster than the old ones too. That doesnt mean that they are anywhere as much kick ass as the old ones!

I mean, Delta S4, 037, 205. All light weight mid engined cars designed to go as fast as possible. Thats what people want to see, nobody gives as rats ass about WRC now.

As for speed, I dont know. Ofcourse on cornery stages they would win, not really a big deal if you got more than 20 years advantage in tire, brake etc tech. But on more straight courses? They got bloody fast acceleration (and higher top speed?) so if its a place they can compete on power I suppose they'd still stand something of a chance.

but this

vs

Easy choice for me. Gimme the kick ass one

 

[DJ12]

As usual you change your argument

I would sooner own an RS200 than my old Subaru, but I am under no illusion as to which one would be faster, it would be the Subaru, by a country mile.

Technology has more than made up for any lack of power.

 

[dizietsma]

It was a gamble and they lost it, but had it succeeded Kimi would have ended probably first
It was raining just a bit when he entered the pits, usually in Malaysia the rain comes really quick and heavy when it starts, so they gambled it would do it this time too, but it didn't, not fast enough anyway

Actually, as Glock showed, the best tyre was the Intermediate, so they even put the wrong rain tyre on Mind you, as you say, normally it rains very heavily very quickly, but this time it did not. With rainfall radar though you should be able to get intensity, so it is surprising all the teams were slightly caught out apart from Toyota.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

As usual you change your argument

I would sooner own an RS200 than my old Subaru, but I am under no illusion as to which one would be faster, it would be the Subaru, by a country mile.

Technology has more than made up for any lack of power.

I did not change my argument. WRC are pussy cars. I never said they are not faster than the old ones. But the group B cars where just alot more spectaculair and harder to drive.

And I still believe that a Group B can beat a WRC car if the course plays into the advantage of the Group B cars. I mean, a S4 has 550bhp and weights only 890kg, goes from 0 - 100 in 2.7 secs.

The 2003 Subaru WRC has 300bph and weights 1230kg.

I dont believe a S4 has no chance at all.

 

[_xxx_]

goes from 0 - 100 in 2.7 secs.

LMAO And I see pink elephants flying.

 

[Bludd]

I think the WRC's trick differential, torque and wide power band could prove more than a match for the Lancia. This is of course over a full course. The lower weight and higher max power would most likely make it faster in a straight drag, but that's not what rally is about.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

LMAO And I see pink elephants flying.

Well I dont know if its true, but thats what I get if I search the interwebs.

Autocar tested a standard 6R4 and one of the full rally cars that we brought back from the abortive trip to Portugal in 1986. They timed the rally car at 2.8 seconds 0-60mph and, as far as I know, that is still one of the fastest cars over that particular criterion that they have ever tested. It was able to do it, incidentally, since the V6 could be revved above it normal limit of 9,600rpm and thus they were able to hold second gear to achieve 60mph without popping it into third. Frankly, I doubt if the Delta S4 or Quattro E2 would have been faster had they ever been tested under rigorous conditions as there was always some delay in getting the gases flowing through their long and complicated induction systems. Mind you, once past 60mph, they would have been gone ...

But are those figures really that strange? I mean, if a veyron can do 0 - 100 in 2.8 with 1000bhp and 1800+kg, that a S4 actually has more or less the same power to weight ratio right? Plus all the B cars had their gearboxes set up for acceleration and not top speed. If it would be on tarmac, would sub 3 secs really be impossible?

 

[_xxx_]

Probably a typo, 3.8 would be more believable.

Power to weight ratio is less important than aerodynamics with such speeds, here it's still "more power = better", thus Veyron can make those 2.84 seconds.

 

[_xxx_]

Duh, I just realized that you meant Lancia S4 and not Audi S4. That one might be able to go under 3s, but I'm less familiar with it.

 

[catisfit]

But are those figures really that strange? I mean, if a veyron can do 0 - 100 in 2.8 with 1000bhp and 1800+kg, that a S4 actually has more or less the same power to weight ratio right? Plus all the B cars had their gearboxes set up for acceleration and not top speed. If it would be on tarmac, would sub 3 secs really be impossible?

Power to weight ratio suggests it is feasible, of course it depends a lot on the drivetrain and tyres too.

It doesn't say what the 6R4 clocked but in international spec they would apparently clock off 0-60mph in 3.2s.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Power to weight ratio is less important than aerodynamics with such speeds, here it's still "more power = better", thus Veyron can make those 2.84 seconds.

What the hell are you talking about?! "with such speeds"

going from 0-100kmh is all about power to weight ratio and traction, it has pretty much zero to do with aerodynamics. Now up from there the drag starts to affect a lot and more power is better.